Lack of Postwar Planning Unimportant

[ThomWV]

It is not the lack of postwar planning that is an impeachable offense, that is mere incompetence. It was the successful prewar planning, the diversion of funds from the war in Afghanistan, and the lying to the American People in the State of the Union Address and in numerous public appearances that constitute the impeachable offenses.

It would seem now that the tactic being employed to slip out of this noose is paperwork burial. First there was a short document in the Downing Street Minutes, then the memo of the 21st came out, and now we are being drown in a sea of leaked documents. Each one of the new documents, and there are becoming reams of them, diminished and obscures the importance of the original Minutes. The ploy is clear, baffle them with bullshit, bury them in paper.

Folks, we are being had again.

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. Bush wanted to invade even before his 2000 selection

His ghostwriter stated he wanted to as far back as 1999. And then Bush campaigned that he doesn't believe in nation building.

Of course they went with a plan! Invade, overtake, and adapt or die.

[seabeyond]

2. god, how the rights expectation of this president has lowered

no, it isnt a bad thing he cant talk very good english

nah, not a big deal he isnt too smart

well, so he lied to us to go to war, we got saddam

no jobs
poor education
high gas prices
onslaught on enviroment
cruddy health care

what do you wnat from the man, he talked to us from a bullhorn 4 days after 9/11. on the very ground it came crashing

ok, ya it took four days for him to get out there
ya he had enviromental lie about the air

lordy

two years ago, in the most businesslike term to father, a business man. i told him you would have fired his ass if he was an employee. that is what you do with an election. you fire his ass.

[SteppingRazor]

3. Oh, I wouldn't go that far.

The newest releases from Britain only serve to deepen the impact of the original DSM -- and it's hardly "reams" -- FOIA requests can sometimes result in tens of thousands of pages that must be worked through.
I don't see anything devious in the release of the most recent British papers, particularly since they only serve to further damn the administration, not simply provide unnecessary information.

[KoKo]

4. If you read NYT's articles, yes. But, check this out.

Forget the Deep Throat thing and read this whole article from WaPo's Morley and you'll see that there is some excellent reporting being done and Morley says there will be "much more" to come on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3855268

[LSK]

5. i agree

The topic of lack of post war planning would have been useful about a year ago when it was election time. But now it is not an impeachable offense by itself. Its just incompetence. Certainly bad, but nothing that will change the fact that he remains in power.

The original DSM is the smoking gun because he shows he had already made the decision to go to war and was fixing the intelligence. That would mean he lied to Congress which is a big no-no. More evidence should be found along these lines.

Postwar planning is just a smokescreen and is not an impeachable offense by itself.

[GiovanniC]

6. The Administration Fucked Up the Post-War

And anybody with a Forrest Gump IQ or above who isn't glassy-eyed with undying devotion to all things Republican would have figured that out when people's heads started getting chopped off and bombs blew up alongside roads instead of Iraqis throwing flowers and candy at their glorious liberators.

Everyone knows there was no post-war planning.

That said, the more it gets pounded into the public's minds, the madder they get toward Bush's great Iraqi fuck-up.

[LSK]

7. so the public gets madder at Bush

It doesnt matter, there is NO RE-ELECTION for him. It doesnt hurt him. The only people it might hurt Republicans running in 06 and Im not sure how much it would hurt him.

We need IMPEACHABLE EVIDENCE now, not just Bush did a bad job.

[marylanddem]

9. Lying us into war

is not impeachable?

[LSK]

10. politicians lie all the time

The impeachable offense is lying to CONGRESS.

[GiovanniC]

11. I Could Be Wrong, But I Think It Makes a Difference

People are losing trust in him and his decision making abilities. They are less likely to blindly fall into line on a host of important issues that we face today, like social security.

Their chances of getting support for invading Iran or Syria are greatly reduced because the public is angry about how badly he fucked this war up.

In short, the madder the public gets, the lamer the duck gets.

I will also say this about impeaching George W. Bush... You're gonna want to wait until after the 2006 elections (and that's assuming we pick up seats in both the House and Senate), or he's gonna walk through unscathed. Also, you're going to want to not just get Bush, but also Cheney and Rice and the rest of them. That will still leave us with a President Hastert, assuming Bush doesn't pull any Nixon-type shit and get someone like Rove appointed president so that he can be pardoned.

[LSK]

12. you bring some good points

Hopefully, the republicans in Congress will be less willing to work with him if the public gets angrier with him. Maybe future damage to the country can be averted. Unfortunately, a great amount of damage has already been done.

[ThomWV]

16. Desirable Effects

I agree that those are desirable effects of the incompetence of the Administration. However they aren't important in unseating this miserable excuse for a man.

I'm not much concerned about who follows the chimp. Whoever it might be they will find themselves the lamest of lame ducks. Ford may have found it in the public heart to allow Nixon off the hook, no one is going to be able to pardon Bush and whoever his successor might be they too would be utterly ineffective.

As to waiting for 2006, I can not stand for it. The time to push fo the process is now. Nothing happens with any rapidity anyway and so a push for impeachment now brings the real fight for impeachment just in time for the election season - a year from now.

However in the end it has to be a specific law broken to bring him down. Clinton told a lie about a personal matter to a Grand Jury. He broke the law and was impeached for it. Bush was bound by law to provide a report to the Congress (State of the Union Address) and he lied in execution of that sworn duty. That is what is impeachable, not his incompetence.

The Constitution gives us a way to replace an incompetent President and that is by election of a replacement. The Constitution also gives us a way to replace a President who indulges in illegal activity while in office, and that is by impeachment.

[GiovanniC]

17. I Understand What You're Saying

And I know all that.

I just don't see the current composition of the House submitting Articles of Impeachment unless the public gets REALLY ANGRY (like with Nixon).

Even if they did, Bush would walk easily because I don't think there are enough Republicans with a conscience to vote "guilty".

Fuck, at the current rate, we'd probably have Lieberman, Biden, Nelson, Landrieu, and Bayh voting "not guilty" too.

We're only going to get one chance at this (if that!), and I just want to stress that we owe it to this country not to piss it away.

[marylanddem]

8. Can't you feel all that anger

starting to come to the surface? Years of lies, death, destruction, and now, finally, people waking up? I can feel it. I always opposed the war but even so I feel my own anger starting to boil over and sense this is going on throughout America.

[sandnsea]

13. Bush control of post war proves PNAC

And that they were implementing the Bush Doctrine, American reshaping of the ME. In that sense, it's important, if it's tied to the reason they lied to go to war. Otherwise, it's a diversion.

[caledesi]

14. This is a canard. Lame damage control conjured up by the neocons

to distract from the original DSM. Yes, don't be fooled. Who cares about no post-planning, let's talk about the invasion being planned almost a year before!

[LightningFlash]

15. "Don't look over there Amruka, look over here!!!"

Amazing Karl Rove Tony Blair speech in action!! :crazy:

Look at the good we did, huhuhuhu, don't look at the fact we made an illegal war for our buddies. Don't remember those quotes which show the regime change was illegal, that we would "make it legal" and then install a new dictator Chalabi. Huhuhuhu no don't do that...

[JHB]

18. It's not unimportant, it helps expose and undermine his support structure.

The Bushgang has gotten away with as much as they have by muscleing their way through any oposition on sheer arrogance and the tendency of so many people to give the (office of the) President the benefit of the doubt.

Even people who might have been willing to try the "just knock out Saddam" road to democracy in Iraq would recognize the value of having a "Plan B" at hand and in motion, and not gamble everything on the riskier proposition. Only the PNAC Gallery were true believers that they could pull it off (or posed as such), so by highlighting the lack of postwar planning it shines a spotlight on the fact that the course of events was not due to a few bad calls but to an astounding level of pervasive incompetence by the Administration.

Further, by highlighting the lack of planning, it brings into sharper focus the things that were planned: oil and bases.

The Right managed to foster uncertainty about Clinton by continually shovelling great steaming loads of horseshit into public view and then "innocently" noting "well, maybe...but where there's smoke...."

Just because the real flames about the postwar planning are off on the flanks doesn't mean they're useless -- it means they're part of the solution to boxing him in where he can't dodge charges and bluster through on arrogance alone.

[Karenina]

19. ARROGANCE.